• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Unverified but I thought interesting

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

Taken off another site I often visit;

Australian Gun Law Update

Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts...
From: Ed Chenel , A police officer in Australia



Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced
By a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by
Our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns.' You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!


Will you be one of the sheeple to turn yours in? WHY? You will need it.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

It doesnt make a lot of sense to me. The post stated 12 months later, which would be 1997. But the Google search I did to try to verify the information indicated 2009 data from 2008 statistics.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
imported post

I first saw this exact information when I was a Freshman in High School, and I am now 23. I'd like to see some more current data than this.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Michigander wrote:
I first saw this exact information when I was a Freshman in High School, and I am now 23. I'd like to see some more current data than this.

Maybe, through some sort of weird convergence of highly improbable (yet, gratefully fortunate for us) occurences,Australian crime producesexactly the same data--year after year after year?
39.gif


That would make the numbers all the more persuasive!
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

FogRider wrote:
Hmm. While I'd like to trust this, I have a difficult time taking seriously someone who would end their plea with the word "sheeple".
I find the flaws in the data far more telling than the vernacular of the spreader...
 

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
FogRider wrote:
Hmm. While I'd like to trust this, I have a difficult time taking seriously someone who would end their plea with the word "sheeple".
I find the flaws in the data far more telling than the vernacular of the spreader...
Well, sure. But their vernacular goes a long way (for me) towards questioning the data. If you want me to take your data seriously, speak seriously. If you insist on using stupid language, I will assume that your message is stupid.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

FogRider wrote:
ixtow wrote:
FogRider wrote:
Hmm. While I'd like to trust this, I have a difficult time taking seriously someone who would end their plea with the word "sheeple".
I find the flaws in the data far more telling than the vernacular of the spreader...
Well, sure. But their vernacular goes a long way (for me) towards questioning the data. If you want me to take your data seriously, speak seriously. If you insist on using stupid language, I will assume that your message is stupid.
Aye, there is the rub... Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

FogRider wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Aye, there is the rub... Even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Yes, but I don't check broken clocks when I want to know what time it is.
Even working clocks are usually off a bit.

Data flavored with attitude or opinion is not a broken clock. Avoiding it and not even attempting to check it's veracity, is a cop-out. Much the same as just assuming everything the police say is a lie. It probably is, but I'll check anyway. I might learn something.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

buster81 wrote:
Michigander wrote:
I first saw this exact information when I was a Freshman in High School, and I am now 23. I'd like to see some more current data than this.
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/


Thanks, buster. Here's a blurb from that link you provided:

Homicide statistics
Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07.

Murder is the predominant charge and has been throughout the 18-year data-collection period. In 2006-07, there were 230 murder charges, 28 manslaughter charges, one infanticide charge, and one unknown. The type of charge against an offender may change once the incident proceeds through the judicial process.

In 2006-07, there were 260 homicide instances, involving 266 victims and 296 offenders.

Note: The majority of homicide data presented below is derived from two main sources with different data collection cycles. The charts and tables derived from the Institute's National Homicide Monitoring Program data set is collected on a financial year cycle. The other charts and tables are based on ABS data which is collected on a calendar year cycle.


Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
fig012.png



  • The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable.
  • The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344; the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.
  • The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded.
Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number)

homicideRate2.png



Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003
fig013.png





Once again, it is patently clear that gun regulation DOES NOT MATTER and that GUN REGULATION WILL MEAN MORE NOT LESS deaths.

The antis cannot argue the FACTS! They should give it up. What do ya expect from sheeple...

Though I am kinda worried about the gun homicides as a percentage of total homicides. Wait! I know. The data and stats are WRONG! That's it. Bad data...what the heck else could it be?
39.gif


Thank God someone found that link...

"More money for us."
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

HankT wrote:
buster81 wrote:
Michigander wrote:
I first saw this exact information when I was a Freshman in High School, and I am now 23. I'd like to see some more current data than this.
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/


Thanks, buster. Here's a blurb from that link you provided:

Homicide statistics
Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07.

Murder is the predominant charge and has been throughout the 18-year data-collection period. In 2006-07, there were 230 murder charges, 28 manslaughter charges, one infanticide charge, and one unknown. The type of charge against an offender may change once the incident proceeds through the judicial process.

In 2006-07, there were 260 homicide instances, involving 266 victims and 296 offenders.

Note: The majority of homicide data presented below is derived from two main sources with different data collection cycles. The charts and tables derived from the Institute's National Homicide Monitoring Program data set is collected on a financial year cycle. The other charts and tables are based on ABS data which is collected on a calendar year cycle.


Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
fig012.png



  • The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable.
  • The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344; the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.
  • The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded.
Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number)

homicideRate2.png



Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003
fig013.png





Once again, it is patently clear that gun regulation DOES NOT MATTER and that GUN REGULATION WILL MEAN MORE NOT LESS deaths.

The antis cannot argue the FACTS! They should give it up. What do ya expect from sheeple...

Though I am kinda worried about the gun homicides as a percentage of total homicides. Wait! I know. The data and stats are WRONG! That's it. Bad data...what the heck else could it be?
39.gif


Thank God someone found that link...

"More money for us."
I'm not sure what your trying to say. The informationyou posted suggests the number of both homicide incidents and homicide victims was lower in 2007 than in 1996.

If you look further, you would find that the number of assaults has increased:

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/stats/assault/

as well as the number of sexual assaults has increased:

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/sexual_assault/stats/

Since assaults happenabout 170 timesmore often than homicides:

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/stats/

and assaults increased by 1.35, is it safe to conclude that total violent crime has increased since 1996?

So, what is your agenda?
 
Top